The next step

[paulespino]

For example if God commanded the killing of thousands of people here on earth but these people

will also be given a chance to repent even after their physical body have died so that they can be part of God's family , do you think God is fair.

[Paidion]

Interesting that you should ask that, Paul. When one of my sisters learned that I believe in the reconcilation of all people to God, her response was, "That wouldn't be fair."

[Candlepower]

do you think God is fair

In Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16), the people who were paid a wage for working many hours thought it was unfair that their employer paid the same wage to others who had worked only a few hours. The landlord’s answer to their criticism was, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?”

The point is that God’s ways are above our ways. Our perception of justice is often shaped by temporal jealousies, but God’s eye is eternally perfect. As Lord (owner), He can do what He wants to with His stuff. In the end, He is too good to do wrong, and too wise to make a mistake.

[paulespino]

Thanks for the reply Padion and Candle, the reason I asked the question is because in the OT God ordered the killings of Canaanites because they were disobedient for so many years, they were given a chance to change but they did not.

Now if God will give them another chance to repent so that they will be save, do guys still think that God is just?

By the way Paidion, My father has now been converted to UR and once saved always saved he listened to Greg Albreicht from Plain Truth Ministries. My father has converted my whole family except me which made him unhappy.
I'm not quite convinced yet, I know that father is hoping that one day I will be converted into UR & once saved always saved.

[jriccitelli]

It doesn’t make sense for God to kill the Sodomites/Canaanites if all God wanted to have them do is repent and love Him. If this was their wakeup call, and they have a second chance post-mortem to repent prior to a last Judgment then great, but now you have stepped outside of revealed scripture and have to introduce other teachings and introduce an unspoken other world scenario for these people (if Sheol is not enough to make them repent and accept Gods righteousness). If UR were to be supposed then you would also have to rethink the last Judgment, redefine the LOF, believe all men can change, etc.etc.
I think God also is logical and concerned with truth, just as much as justice. If God put people to death because they were uncontrollably sinful, then that agrees with what God said He would do (Regarding the parable, God can do what He wants, but the question doesn’t concern who is first, last or envy, it is about evil people, repentance and sin)

[steve]

It doesn’t make sense for God to kill the Sodomites/Canaanites if all God wanted to have them do is repent and love Him.

God's killing the Canaanites needn't have anything to do with their capacity or incapacity to repent. It could have everything to do with the harm they were causing others (like their sacrificing of their live babies to Molech), which He was no longer willing to leave unavenged. We don't know that people this wicked can never repent. We do know, though, that, while they remain unrepentant, they are a peril to their innocent victims, whom God has pledged to avenge.

[jriccitelli]

Didn't I say: "... If this was their wakeup call, and they have a second chance post-mortem to repent prior to a last Judgment then great" Of course I know why God had to kill them, but to embrace UR it follows that: "... now you have stepped outside of revealed scripture and have to introduce other teachings and introduce an unspoken other world scenario for these people (if Sheol is not enough to make them repent and accept Gods righteousness)"

[steve]

JR,

I don't know what more to say to you. You keep saying the same things. You say that by allowing the possibility of postmortem repentance, one has "stepped outside of revealed scripture..." This is admitted. What has been pointed out to you, more times than any of us would wish to count up, is that, by excluding the possibility of postmortem repentance, you have equally "stepped outside of revealed scripture." Either affirmation–yours or the universalist's—equally claims to know what the scriptures have not explicitly taught.

It seems to me that you said once that you are even open to the possibility of some repenting after death (I may be thinking of someone else, but I think it was you). Any such hope on your part equally has "stepped outside of revealed scripture."

The same is true of those of us who believe that God may recognize the faith of some who, in this life, have never heard the gospel, and may justify them despite their ignorance. The Bible does not affirm or deny this. However, the knowledge of God's character may encourage educated speculation about things upon which scripture is silent.

[Paidion]

God's killing the Canaanites needn't have anything to do with their capacity or incapacity to repent. It could have everything to do with the harm they were causing others (like their sacrificing of their live babies to Molech), which He was no longer willing to leave unavenged.

Hmmmm... I wonder why He didn't wipe out Oholah and Oholibah (metaphorically Samaria and Jerusalem) who also sacrificed their children to idols.

The LORD said to me: “Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Declare to them their abominations. For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered up to them for food the children whom they had borne to me. Moreover, this they have done to me: they have defiled my sanctuary on the same day and profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slaughtered their children in sacrifice to their idols, on the same day they came into my sanctuary to profane it. (Ezekiel 23:36-39)

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

I don't know what more to say to you. You keep saying the same things. You say that by allowing the possibility of postmortem repentance, one has "stepped outside of revealed scripture..." This is admitted. What has been pointed out to you, more times than any of us would wish to count up, is that, by excluding the possibility of postmortem repentance, you have equally "stepped outside of revealed scripture." Either affirmation–yours or the universalist's—equally claims to know what the scriptures have not explicitly taught.

It seems to me that you said once that you are even open to the possibility of some repenting after death (I may be thinking of someone else, but I think it was you). Any such hope on your part equally has "stepped outside of revealed scripture."

The same is true of those of us who believe that God may recognize the faith of some who, in this life, have never heard the gospel, and may justify them despite their ignorance. The Bible does not affirm or deny this. However, the knowledge of God's character may encourage educated speculation about things upon which scripture is silent.

So you admit that universalism is "outside of revealed scripture", given the necessity of repentance in any system of reconciliation with God. Although more than once I have thought you had become a convinced universalist, you maintain you can not decide because you say there is not enough scripture to base your decision on. Given your statement above, I can not understand why you defend the universalist viewpoint with such zeal. If you are being candid about your position, it would seem that you would equally attack all dogmatic claims by universalists (there are many made) just as you do the traditional views.